Can We Put Humpty Back Together? by Lew Rosenbaum
In the last year, so much of our thinking seems to be conditioned by elections coming up at the end of 2018. We get evidence, every day something new, that the corporate billionaires are enriching themselves exponentially while those of us at the bottom are losing what little we have. It seems we are so frightened by the currently frightful national political situation, that so many are obsessed with kicking out the Republicans and restoring a majority of Democrat officeholders. It’s not exactly historical amnesia; it’s more like inability to think outside the paradigms we have come to accept as the natural world. Some abstractions like “lesser of two evils” don’t help, as people confront a fight to maintain basic services. A look back at the legislative history of the Humphrey-Hawkins “full employment” Act in the 1970s shows what we are dealing with. In the wake of Watergate, with Nixon forced to resign and his VP Gerald Ford in office, the Democrats won both houses of Congress in 1974. In 1975 Congressman Gus Hawkins of
Los Angeles and Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota brought to the floor of their respective chambers a bill promising full employment. Despite a veto-proof Democrat majority, the bill failed to gather enough support. By the time the Full Employment and Balanced Growth bill passed and was signed by Jimmy Carter,(1978), negotiations with Carter had significantly weakened the bill to almost meaninglessness (note: it was the icon of progressivism Carter who forced those concessions). (See a more complete history of this legislation in this New York Times article). Humphrey died before the bill was signed. At the signing ceremony, Hawkins — the first African American Congressman West of the Mississippi — himself declared the final bill was “symbolic.”
The conflict around this bill took place as a major change was just beginning in workplaces around the country. Deindustrialization by outsourcing to other countries and the beginning electronic revolution was causing unemployment to soar (it exceeded 8% in 1975). The last breaths of capitalist expansion within the US coughed and gasped. The world as we had known it during the earlier part of the century was turning upside down. Full employment was magically defined as 4% unemployment in a legislative trick that eventually expired in 2011. It’s been downhill for four decades.
Can we act the same way we did in 1975, when Humphrey-Hawkins posed a reform goal that they asserted was possible? Almost two decades after Humphrey-Hawkins, Entering and Epoch of Social Revolution was published, and the Communist Labor Party, which had published the report, was disbanded. An organization of revolutionaries was formed on a different basis, for a different task. Nelson Peery, the author of this report, also wrote a piece on “Polarization in U.S. — Basis for a Workers Party,” for Rally Comrades! and collected in the Epoch pamphlet. The last two sections of that article are reprinted below. It is decisive in describing what’s different now and why the old tactics will no longer work. If anything, the self-destruction of the two parties is much more evident today than then.
Humpty Dumpty is teetering on the edge of the wall. Some would even say he has fallen over and lying shattered on the ground. And that we are obsessed with trying to put the Humpties back together again. But it can’t be done. And the growing social movements that are widely scattered are nevertheless seeking some political expression, when the trade unions are not capable of providing one. This is in part because they are inextricably tied to the Democrats; more fundamentally, because large sections of the working class, sections that are no longer working or working only contingently and part-time, have little allegiance to a trade union movement, fatally weakened by legislation such as Taft-Hartley, that has left them behind.
The only question left is, under what conditions will our thinking change to conform to the new reality, and what will the products of the new thinking be? I think this helps:
V REFORM TO REVOLUTION
. . . The shift from reform to revolution doesn’t just happen. It is a process and like all processes involves destruction of the old to make way for the new. It includes destruction of the old organizational forms, and the destruction of the methods of dealing with the old.
The first thing is that we simply cannot apply the same tactic to an objectively reform movement and to an objectively communist movement. If we are correct regarding the development of an objective communist movement, wouldn’t it be deadly to carry the same tactic over from the fight for reform? Theory tells us that this objective movement is going toward communism. Do we have to direct it, keep it under our wing or try to pull it in a certain direction as we did with the reform movement? Or should we develop the tactic of pushing it forward from the inside? That means recognizing that it does have an objective goal, accepting the actual struggle of the revolutionary section of the class as the basis for our program, and pushing for its accomplishment.
The second thing is that we cannot have the same organizational relationship to the movement under these various circumstances. When a reform movement is fighting for reform within the system, a communist party must create a relationship with this objective movement that reflects that reality. Clearly we have to adapt our organizational forms to set up a proper relationship to an objectively communist movement.
The real skill of the professional revolutionaries is shown by their ability to grasp the quantitative aspects of a qualitative leap, their ability to change with the changing process.
We are at a very early stage of polarization, but we can see where this thing is going. Economic polarization developed on the basis of electronic technology applied to production by multinational corporations serving the world market. In every country, the qualitative increase in productivity by the workers so cheapens their value that absolute poverty becomes the condition for absolute wealth. Economic polarization creates social polarization. The unity of national and other social groups is destroyed as economic polarization regroups society according to wealth and poverty. The Los Angeles rebellion is testimony to this stage. Social polarization, in turn, is the basis for the next inevitable stage — political polarization.
VI AN ORGANIZATION OF REVOLUTIONARIES
Marx states in the Manifesto, “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.”
What is the future of this current motion? Marx continues, “every class struggle is a political struggle.” Further, he points out, “this organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party…” This means that as the workers are objectively formed into a class, they necessarily are, on the subjective side, formed into a political party. One is the expression of the other.
The next big and very difficult step will be the formation of a workers party. It will not be a populist, hybrid, “third party,” but a party of the class. It would be more than an electoral party. It would be the organizational center for the struggles of the class — strikes, demonstrations, protests, and elections. Such a party would create political programs to achieve the immediate demands of the class. A task that, under the existing conditions, is the unnatural responsibility of our Communist Labor Party (CLP). When such a workers party exists, the task of the communists will be to plan out the strategies and tactics of the proletarian revolution and win the mass leaders to that line.
Our proper role as communists is to become the most advanced and resolute section of the working class party, that section that pushes forward all others. Only by doing this can we establish the proper relationship between ourselves and the actual movement for communism.
We must do what we can to prepare the workers for and help them form this party. The starting point is grasping the concepts of and differences between economic, social and proletarian revolution. Secondly, we must see and prepare to work within the various stages of struggle and organization that lies between now and then.
We must put an end to the talk about liquidating the Communist Labor Party in order to form a workers party. We cannot form a workers party. Such a party is the result of consciousness on the part of the workers. On the other hand, an organization of revolutionaries is absolutely indispensable to the formation of a workers party. We intend to disband the CLP in order to build such an organization of revolutionaries.
This is an exciting historical moment. Skirmishing in the epoch of the final conflict has begun. All the objective factors are in place or almost so. From now on the subjective factor, our skill, clarity, astuteness and determination become the decisive factors. This is the moment we have waited for. We need wait no more.